/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/28/#launchpad.txt

=== charles__ is now known as charles
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
Saviqmooore spammers: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity8/+bug/132407112:12
ubot5Ubuntu bug 1324071 in unity8 (Ubuntu) "Acne And The Importance Of Skin Care" [Undecided,Invalid]12:12
cjwatsonSaviq: dealing12:13
Saviqcjwatson, thanks12:13
cjwatsondone12:13
ki7mtIs this the right channel to discuss PPA's on Launchpad and such?14:25
davmor2ki7mt: ask your question.  Most of the devs are in the Australian/New Zealand timezone so you might not get a response immediately14:27
cjwatsonWell, not this week they aren't14:27
davmor2cjwatson: oh14:27
davmor2cjwatson: buy them beer then they deserve it :)14:28
wgrantYeah, we're all in Malta this week.14:31
ki7mtdavmor2, Ok, understand, I'm working on several applications, though related, separate repo branches.  Is the best practice to create one PPA for each application or set up a team PPA or something?14:31
dobeyit's up to you how to deal with it. but best practice is to do the thing that best suits how you want your users to get our apps from a PPA14:35
dobeydoesn't need to be a team PPA unless you need multiple people to upload to it14:35
dobeyyou can have one PPA and just upload the source packages for all the apps to the one ppa?14:36
cjwatsonit's certainly entirely reasonable to put multiple packages in one PPA, if they'll be used by roughly the same set of people14:36
cjwatsonyou'd use multiple PPAs when they have radically different audiences, require different access control for uploads, and/or have conflicting packages in the different archives14:36
ki7mtOk, they are all very close is use, just different parts of the radio spectrum. Sounds like one PPA, then add the packages to that is a reasonable approach.14:39
wgrantYep14:41
wgrantIf they're new packages, rather than changes to packages in Ubuntu, users can add your PPA and then just choose which packages to install.14:41
ki7mtThanks for the info. I'm sure I'll be back with more questions when things fall over :-)14:42
ki7mtYes, I'm new to packaging for Debian/Ubuntu .. I have the first package building on sid 32/64 and trust 32/64 with pbuilder, lintian is ok also.14:44
ki7mttrusty 32/64 .. ..14:44
ki7mtAnd yes, 3 of the apps are not in Debian or Ubuntu, then two others are but they need to be brought up to date for py3 and numpy 1.8 etc etc.,14:47
tgm4883dobey: so... 12.10 was marked as supported again?  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/quantal15:41
cjwatsonsee #ubuntu-release15:56
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
ki7mtHello all, I have a package, not currently in Debian/Ubuntu, that I've create the PPA page, tested builds etc,  and I'm ready to dput, but I'm a bit confused on the version / naming conversion. Program name is WSPR, version is 4.0. How should I name this for uploading to LP18:37
TheWaterOnFireIs there any reason I should get a "Missing build dependency" for a package that is part of the PPA I am building in?18:56
TheWaterOnFirei.e., building umockdev, need valac (>= 0.16.1); so added vala 0.16.1 to the PPA, but umockdev still won't build.18:57
maxbCheck the package actually got published before you started the build?18:59
TheWaterOnFireIt did. And I also restarted the build once afterward, just to be sure.18:59
maxbIt could be a component issue, if "Use the same components used for each source in the Ubuntu primary archive." is the selected option for that PPA19:00
TheWaterOnFireIt's set to "Use all Ubuntu components available"19:01
maxbYou'd better give a link to the PPA and build, then19:05
TheWaterOnFirehttps://launchpad.net/~dwink/+archive/gstreamer/+build/604853419:06
maxbTheWaterOnFire: I see no package called 'valac' in that PPA19:10
maxbI see one called 'valac-0.16', but that's hardly the same thing19:11
TheWaterOnFiremaxb: Aha. That makes some sense. The vala packaging is strange that way. Thanks!19:13
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
cjwatsonki7mt: I would probably use 4.0-0ppa1 or something like that, in order that any future upload to Ubuntu will supersede it21:53
cjwatsonki7mt: and convert the program name to lower case21:53
ki7mtcjwatson, Thanks, the .org is all lower case, iv'e got the front half sorted out .. wspr-4..0~r4155 .. now I just need to figure out the 0ubuntu1 part, it's not clear on the site how that is assigned I guess it's done with the dput command.22:02
ki7mtwhoops wspr-4.0~r4155 .. ..22:03
cjwatsonki7mt: you don't need that if it isn't in Ubuntu22:07
cjwatsonAnd dput does not change version numbers22:07
ki7mtOh, ok, thanks. so i can simply put: wspr-4.0~r4155_source.changes and away it goes?22:08
cjwatsondon't need that> that is, "-0ubuntu1" indicates specifically a version of a package modified in Ubuntu - something like -0ppa1 would be better probably22:08
cjwatsonYou put the version number in the top line of debian/changelog22:08
ki7mtYes, thats there already22:09
cjwatsonIf the package has a separate upstream existence (that is, there's already a wspr tarball released, or similar) then it should probably be 4.0~r4155-0ppa1 or something like that22:09
ki7mtwspr (4.0~r4155) UNRELEASED; urgency=lo22:09
ki7mtlow22:09
cjwatson4.0~r4155 with no -<something> indicates that the package in question *only* exists as a package - this is usually only appropriate if you're working on something quite core to the distribution itself, so for example dpkg doesn't have a -<revision> part22:10
ki7mtOk, so I need to change the tarball name and changelog to add-<somthing> as well.22:11
cjwatsonno22:11
cjwatsonjust the changelog22:11
cjwatsonSo I would usually do "wspr (4.0~r4155-0ppa1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low" (and of course set "UNRELEASED" to the actual target release (using dch -r) before actually uploading)22:11
cjwatsonif I made a change to the packaging that would become 4.0~r4155-0ppa222:12
cjwatsonif I took a new upstream snapshot that would become 4.0~r4156-0ppa1 (or whatever)22:12
cjwatsonif upstream made a proper release then that would become 4.0-0ppa122:12
cjwatsonsomething like that22:12
cjwatsonas I say, assuming that WSPR is a thing that has an upstream maintainer22:13
ki7mtThat what this is, a snapshot, as we're in the process of getting tar's generated on releases, jsut not there yet.22:13
cjwatsonsure, I get that22:13
ki7mtIm part of that upstream helper croud :-)22:13
cjwatsonif it exists in some manner other than a package, though, which it sounds like it does, you should have a -<revision>, e.g. 4.0~r4155-0ppa122:14
cjwatsoneven if you are part of the upstream maintenance crew22:14
cjwatsonotherwise there will sooner or later be some confusion between the version numbers you release in your packages and the upstream versions22:14
ki7mtIt does, but it's in Windows, a few of us are converting things to *Nix thus the 4.0, that's the actual release version.22:14
cjwatsonsure, I don't need to know :)22:15
cjwatsonanyway, running out of battery and need sleep, night22:15
ki7mtOk, thanks.22:15
=== Guest30318 is now known as nesthib
santahello22:42
santaI have started recently trying to get some changes in the kubuntu kde framworks 5 packaging, so I made some personal bzr branches with my changes22:43
santahowever, I don't see the "merge request" button in the web interface, why is that?22:43
santafor instance http://derp.co.uk/7399922:47
dobeysanta: +junk branches are not part of a project or distribution. you need to push your branch to a location under a project or distribution, to propose it.23:30
santadobey: thanks. well the idea would be able to merge them here https://code.launchpad.net/kubuntu-packaging how do you suggest me to proceed? the person willing to review my changes told me it would be better - and I agree - if I could use the "merge request" thing (in order to avoid poking on irc)23:39
dobeypush them to lp:~yourusername/kubuntu-packaging/whatever-you-want-to-name-the-branch23:46
dobeylike lp:~foo/kubuntu-packaging/fix-readme or whatever23:46
santaok, I'm not sure if I will have permissions to do that. I guess I don't so I will discuss it with the kubuntu guys tomorrow23:49
santathank you for the help23:49
dobeyyes you do23:49
dobeyanyone can push any branch under a project like that23:49
santaoh23:49
santalet me check23:50
dobeythe part that deterines the owner of the branch is your username23:50
dobeyanyway, i have to go23:50
santaah, ok23:50
santasee you23:50

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!